Comments on: CERN: Yep, looks like it’s definitely a Higgs bosonhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/
Feeding Your Gadget and Tech ObsessionsMon, 03 Aug 2015 00:13:00 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3By: Thickohttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-281373
Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:29:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-281373Al Gore invented the God Particle, Obama is Jesus, and John Boehner is Satan. So give us $100 trillion + all liberties, and maybe we will have hover boards in 600 years.
]]>By: Wesley Andrew Hightowerhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-281098
Mon, 18 Mar 2013 04:57:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-281098Science? No, we should ask a Priest to explain the universe. That is much cheaper and makes it much easier to just act like we are trying to learn anything without doing any pesky research.
]]>By: gaugebozohttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-281057
Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:38:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-281057I’m confused what you mean by, “…directly tested or proven.” The Standard Model of particle physics has been fantastically affirmed, in the same way that Newton’s theories have been. They are unquestionably correct for the domain to which they apply. It’s the most precisely measured theory in human existence. Could you give me some examples?
]]>By: SSTOhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280846
Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:07:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280846Huh. Either my reply yesterday is still pending or was stricken by the editors. Perhaps the truth is disagreeable.
]]>By: Sevhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280711
Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:07:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280711Let me start by stating that I’m a researcher in quantum computing at UC Berkeley.

In a nutshell, the laws of quantum mechanics rely on 4 simple mathematical rules, each of which describes the following: (1) How to mathematically describe a single quantum state, (2) how to describe multiple systems linked together, (3) how to describe how a quantum system changes or evolves in time, and (4) how one can “observe” the current state of a quantum system.

These 4 rules have been pretty much set in stone for the last century. In fact, they have resisted attacks even from Einstein himself, who strongly disbelieved that these rules could be correct. Quantum theory has been remarkably successful at explaining famous physical phenomena such as in the double-slit experiment — in fact, the theory was developed by Planck and friends precisely to explain physical phenomena which completely broke Newton’s laws of classical mechanics. (Note that Newton’s laws are still quite valid, however, just not at the atomic scale.)

What definitely HAS remained a big question mark over the last century, however, is the INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics – how do we make intuitive sense of the mathematical laws of quantum mechanics? For example, quantum theory predicts that a particle can be in two places at once – what in the world does this mean? In this area, there are indeed many theories, from the Copenhagen interpretation to Everett’s many-worlds theory to pilot-wave theory, none of which are generally agreed upon as being THE correct answer. And this is not surprising, as there is a very deep philosophical question underlying the theory, akin to asking “why do we exist”? This is no way detracts from the correctness of the theory.

“remarkably [you mean sometimes] accurate at predicting how quantum systems will behave in a lab [if low probability of corrolation is “predicting”]

(Thoeretical physics) is in many ways a branch of science [real physics] which underlies much [none] of the technology we have availible to us today.”

I’m not certain as to the status of funding for theoretical physics (again, I’m a computer scientist), so I won’t comment on that. Regardless, you clearly haven’t read the link I’d posted in my first response, because if you did, you’d realize that without quantum mechanics, there would be no transistors. Without transistors, you can kiss computers goodbye. And without computers, well, I don’t think I need to go there.

At the end of the day, you’re missing an extremely important point. Theoretical research is the underpinning of all of modern science. Everything we’ve built around us has resulted from the basic practice of postulating a theoretical model which aims to predict how nature works, and then trying to corroborate this model in the lab. This includes everything from Newton’s laws of motion to Bohr’s model of the atom to Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements and the development of vaccines.

Nature is a very complicated thing in certain respects – there were models of the atom before Bohr’s, and there were models for DNA before Watson and Crick’s — we need multiple models out there so that we have many candidates from which to choose the most correct one. And yes, the argument over which model is correct can become quite personal at times; after all, these models are the pride and joy (not unlike a child) of their founders. But that doesn’t detract from the importance of the overall process.

]]>By: SSTOhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280657
Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:51:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280657Sev – “The mathematical laws [you mean ever changing theories] of quantum physics are remarkably [you mean sometimes] accurate at predicting how quantum systems will behave in a lab [if low probability of corrolation is “predicting”]. And this has proven remarkably useful [in keeping R&D funds flowing]. …
(Thoeretical physics) is in many ways a branch of science [real physics] which underlies much [none] of the technology we have availible to us today.”

Re – Fixed. I’d agree that the large umbrella of physics is very important, but there is absolutely nothing gained though quantum theory except wasting time and money while real science and understanding goes by the wayside.
I’m all for subatomic particle physics experiments like colliders as a quest for understanding, but it’s gotten to the point of naming some bits while dismissing others (that’s not science, but agenda), all to fill in blanks of a theory/model that itself makes spectacular and unprovable assumptions about the Universe, matter, etc. That’s not a quest for understanding, but storytelling to make a check.

]]>By: Sevhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280413
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:22:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280413The question we care about as researchers is not whether element X is man-made or natural, the question is whether element X could exist at all. Note that this is a very important question, and just about every modern advance depends on it: For example, do TV’s exist in nature? Of course not. But can we build it? Turns out, yes, and that’s a big deal.

So please think twice before posting negative comments about theoretical physics. It is in many ways a branch of science which underlies much of the technology we have available to us today.

]]>By: SSTOhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280399
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:05:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280399Decades ago scientists theorized about the heaviest elements, then went about creating them. The conclusion; Yes, they could be man-made, but immediately dissolved and had zero bearing on the Universe and scientific understanding.

For years scientists have theorized about the smallest particles and have gone about smashing bits to create them. The conclusion; Yes, they’ve convenietly created whatever they were looking for and it’s always immediately dissolved.
I’d say it’s all man-made, has no bearing on the Universe or scientific understanding. The scientists claim their underlying theories explain existence, but cannot be directly tested or proven, fundamentally rely on even more dubious theories that have failed experimentally, but that these man-made experiments “might” support it all – in some way – some how.

Eventually, physicists are going to have to wind much of their understanding back to around the 1920s and redo their work, stepping away from geocentrism and into heliocentrism. Sure, quantum mechanics and much of theoretical physics makes great books and garners funding, but how about they pursue truth instead since it’s my dime.

]]>By: Dariohttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280395
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:48:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280395The world wide web is a direct result of this type of research!
]]>By: Wilf Tarquinhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280384
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:32:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280384All scientists should learn from physicists on how to maximize PR for their research:
First PR blitz: “We’re looking for X!”
Second PR blitz “We may have found X!”
Third PR blitz “Yes, it really looks like X!”
Fourth PR blitz “X possibly confirmed!”
…and of course between each blitz a light shower of articles about “X may suggests that maybe Y!” and (regardless of subject) “Parallel univeses may be possible!”.
]]>By: Robert Horvathttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280381
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:51:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280381ask this in a 30 – 50 year period when anti-gravity will be the means to McFly around on a hover board. lol
]]>By: paulhttp://www.slashgear.com/cern-yep-looks-like-its-definitely-a-higgs-boson-15274221/#comment-280378
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:24:00 +0000http://www.slashgear.com/?p=274221#comment-280378Is this worth the cost???
]]>